<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2003 (2) TMI 519 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=189063</link>
    <description>A statutory right to treat specified ailments under the 1980 notification also carried the incidental right to prescribe medicines and issue sickness or death certificates. The text states that the earlier view requiring a recognised medical qualification for State Medical Register entry could not stand where the governing scheme permits registration on the basis of other valid qualifications for the limited purpose authorised by State law. Because the right to prescribe medicine is a concomitant of the right to practise the permitted system of medicine, the appellants were entitled to registration in the State Medical Register only to exercise those incidental functions.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 14 Feb 2003 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 27 Dec 2016 15:28:49 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=453030" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2003 (2) TMI 519 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=189063</link>
      <description>A statutory right to treat specified ailments under the 1980 notification also carried the incidental right to prescribe medicines and issue sickness or death certificates. The text states that the earlier view requiring a recognised medical qualification for State Medical Register entry could not stand where the governing scheme permits registration on the basis of other valid qualifications for the limited purpose authorised by State law. Because the right to prescribe medicine is a concomitant of the right to practise the permitted system of medicine, the appellants were entitled to registration in the State Medical Register only to exercise those incidental functions.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 14 Feb 2003 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=189063</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>